Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1631

control, N = 821

treatment, N = 811

p-value2

age

161

51.00 ± 12.35 (25 - 74)

50.98 ± 12.24 (25 - 74)

51.01 ± 12.52 (28 - 73)

0.985

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

163

0.737

f

127 (78%)

63 (77%)

64 (79%)

m

36 (22%)

19 (23%)

17 (21%)

occupation

163

0.913

day_training

3 (1.8%)

2 (2.4%)

1 (1.2%)

full_time

21 (13%)

11 (13%)

10 (12%)

homemaker

15 (9.2%)

7 (8.5%)

8 (9.9%)

other

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.5%)

part_time

30 (18%)

15 (18%)

15 (19%)

retired

41 (25%)

20 (24%)

21 (26%)

self_employ

7 (4.3%)

4 (4.9%)

3 (3.7%)

student

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.5%)

t_and_e

2 (1.2%)

1 (1.2%)

1 (1.2%)

unemploy

40 (25%)

22 (27%)

18 (22%)

marital

163

0.944

cohabitation

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.2%)

divore

18 (11%)

11 (13%)

7 (8.6%)

in_relationship

4 (2.5%)

2 (2.4%)

2 (2.5%)

married

47 (29%)

23 (28%)

24 (30%)

none

81 (50%)

40 (49%)

41 (51%)

seperation

3 (1.8%)

2 (2.4%)

1 (1.2%)

widow

9 (5.5%)

4 (4.9%)

5 (6.2%)

edu

163

0.200

bachelor

38 (23%)

14 (17%)

24 (30%)

diploma

31 (19%)

21 (26%)

10 (12%)

hd_ad

5 (3.1%)

4 (4.9%)

1 (1.2%)

postgraduate

14 (8.6%)

7 (8.5%)

7 (8.6%)

primary

11 (6.7%)

4 (4.9%)

7 (8.6%)

secondary_1_3

18 (11%)

10 (12%)

8 (9.9%)

secondary_4_5

38 (23%)

19 (23%)

19 (23%)

secondary_6_7

8 (4.9%)

3 (3.7%)

5 (6.2%)

fam_income

163

0.794

10001_12000

6 (3.7%)

2 (2.4%)

4 (4.9%)

12001_14000

8 (4.9%)

4 (4.9%)

4 (4.9%)

14001_16000

8 (4.9%)

3 (3.7%)

5 (6.2%)

16001_18000

4 (2.5%)

2 (2.4%)

2 (2.5%)

18001_20000

8 (4.9%)

6 (7.3%)

2 (2.5%)

20001_above

30 (18%)

17 (21%)

13 (16%)

2001_4000

22 (13%)

13 (16%)

9 (11%)

4001_6000

19 (12%)

7 (8.5%)

12 (15%)

6001_8000

14 (8.6%)

8 (9.8%)

6 (7.4%)

8001_10000

13 (8.0%)

6 (7.3%)

7 (8.6%)

below_2000

31 (19%)

14 (17%)

17 (21%)

medication

163

145 (89%)

73 (89%)

72 (89%)

0.978

onset_duration

160

15.50 ± 10.48 (0 - 56)

15.86 ± 11.32 (0 - 56)

15.12 ± 9.58 (0 - 35)

0.653

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

158

35.69 ± 13.69 (10 - 65)

34.97 ± 12.36 (10 - 61)

36.43 ± 14.97 (14 - 65)

0.505

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1631

control, N = 821

treatment, N = 811

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

163

3.17 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

3.21 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.15 (1 - 5)

0.701

recovery_stage_b

163

17.94 ± 2.75 (8 - 24)

17.90 ± 2.91 (8 - 24)

17.99 ± 2.59 (13 - 24)

0.844

ras_confidence

163

29.89 ± 5.27 (14 - 45)

29.45 ± 5.12 (14 - 40)

30.33 ± 5.42 (18 - 45)

0.287

ras_willingness

163

11.82 ± 2.03 (5 - 15)

11.70 ± 2.05 (5 - 15)

11.94 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)

0.447

ras_goal

163

17.41 ± 3.15 (7 - 25)

17.16 ± 3.06 (7 - 24)

17.67 ± 3.23 (11 - 25)

0.304

ras_reliance

163

13.26 ± 2.95 (5 - 20)

13.05 ± 2.86 (5 - 18)

13.47 ± 3.03 (7 - 20)

0.364

ras_domination

163

9.82 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)

9.98 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)

9.67 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)

0.416

symptom

163

29.76 ± 9.00 (14 - 56)

29.83 ± 9.27 (14 - 55)

29.69 ± 8.77 (15 - 56)

0.922

slof_work

163

22.42 ± 4.83 (10 - 30)

22.61 ± 4.43 (12 - 30)

22.23 ± 5.22 (10 - 30)

0.621

slof_relationship

163

25.28 ± 5.90 (9 - 35)

24.77 ± 5.92 (9 - 35)

25.80 ± 5.88 (11 - 35)

0.265

satisfaction

163

20.50 ± 7.23 (5 - 35)

19.62 ± 7.10 (5 - 33)

21.38 ± 7.29 (5 - 35)

0.120

mhc_emotional

163

10.83 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.52 ± 3.76 (3 - 17)

11.14 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.308

mhc_social

163

15.13 ± 5.57 (5 - 30)

14.94 ± 5.62 (5 - 30)

15.33 ± 5.55 (5 - 29)

0.653

mhc_psychological

163

21.86 ± 6.40 (6 - 36)

21.59 ± 6.28 (7 - 36)

22.14 ± 6.55 (6 - 36)

0.585

resilisnce

163

16.48 ± 4.63 (6 - 30)

15.96 ± 4.17 (6 - 24)

17.01 ± 5.02 (6 - 30)

0.149

social_provision

163

13.50 ± 2.91 (5 - 20)

13.09 ± 2.71 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 3.06 (5 - 20)

0.069

els_value_living

163

16.98 ± 3.20 (5 - 25)

16.62 ± 3.07 (6 - 22)

17.35 ± 3.29 (5 - 25)

0.149

els_life_fulfill

163

12.75 ± 3.42 (4 - 20)

12.23 ± 3.37 (5 - 19)

13.27 ± 3.40 (4 - 20)

0.052

els

163

29.73 ± 6.05 (9 - 45)

28.85 ± 5.84 (11 - 39)

30.62 ± 6.16 (9 - 45)

0.062

social_connect

163

26.47 ± 9.26 (8 - 48)

26.84 ± 8.90 (8 - 48)

26.09 ± 9.65 (8 - 48)

0.604

shs_agency

163

14.30 ± 5.16 (3 - 24)

13.72 ± 4.84 (3 - 21)

14.89 ± 5.43 (3 - 24)

0.149

shs_pathway

163

16.02 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)

15.46 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

16.58 ± 4.13 (4 - 24)

0.088

shs

163

30.32 ± 8.95 (6 - 48)

29.18 ± 8.67 (6 - 45)

31.47 ± 9.14 (7 - 48)

0.103

esteem

163

12.60 ± 1.61 (9 - 20)

12.59 ± 1.64 (9 - 18)

12.60 ± 1.59 (10 - 20)

0.938

mlq_search

163

14.82 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

14.48 ± 3.57 (4 - 21)

15.17 ± 3.57 (3 - 21)

0.215

mlq_presence

163

13.39 ± 4.37 (3 - 21)

13.11 ± 4.12 (3 - 21)

13.68 ± 4.61 (3 - 21)

0.407

mlq

163

28.21 ± 7.08 (6 - 42)

27.59 ± 6.70 (7 - 40)

28.85 ± 7.42 (6 - 42)

0.254

empower

163

19.22 ± 4.30 (6 - 30)

18.74 ± 4.24 (9 - 30)

19.70 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)

0.155

ismi_resistance

163

14.45 ± 2.58 (5 - 20)

14.41 ± 2.37 (6 - 20)

14.49 ± 2.79 (5 - 20)

0.845

ismi_discrimation

163

11.71 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)

11.91 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

11.49 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

0.380

sss_affective

163

10.12 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

10.07 ± 3.52 (3 - 18)

10.16 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

0.876

sss_behavior

163

9.82 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

9.93 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

9.72 ± 3.68 (3 - 18)

0.718

sss_cognitive

163

8.33 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

8.28 ± 3.62 (3 - 18)

8.38 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.860

sss

163

28.27 ± 10.16 (9 - 54)

28.28 ± 10.05 (9 - 54)

28.26 ± 10.33 (9 - 54)

0.989

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.21

0.130

2.95, 3.46

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.184

-0.432, 0.289

0.698

time_point

1st

2nd

0.145

0.196

-0.239, 0.528

0.461

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.329

0.283

-0.226, 0.884

0.247

Pseudo R square

0.019

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.312

17.3, 18.5

group

control

treatment

0.085

0.442

-0.781, 0.951

0.847

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.252

0.423

-1.08, 0.577

0.552

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.774

0.613

-0.427, 1.98

0.209

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.5

0.579

28.3, 30.6

group

control

treatment

0.882

0.822

-0.729, 2.49

0.285

time_point

1st

2nd

1.24

0.593

0.074, 2.40

0.040

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.537

0.861

-1.15, 2.22

0.534

Pseudo R square

0.027

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.224

11.3, 12.1

group

control

treatment

0.243

0.317

-0.378, 0.865

0.444

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.219

0.240

-0.689, 0.252

0.365

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.454

0.348

-0.228, 1.14

0.196

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.351

16.5, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.508

0.498

-0.468, 1.48

0.309

time_point

1st

2nd

0.288

0.419

-0.535, 1.11

0.495

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.484

0.608

-0.708, 1.68

0.428

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.325

12.4, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.420

0.462

-0.485, 1.33

0.364

time_point

1st

2nd

0.401

0.360

-0.305, 1.11

0.269

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.462

0.522

-0.561, 1.49

0.378

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.98

0.260

9.47, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.309

0.369

-1.03, 0.414

0.403

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.068

0.334

-0.722, 0.586

0.839

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.13

0.484

0.183, 2.08

0.022

Pseudo R square

0.021

symptom

(Intercept)

29.8

0.988

27.9, 31.8

group

control

treatment

-0.138

1.402

-2.89, 2.61

0.922

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.02

0.878

-2.74, 0.696

0.247

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.687

1.274

-3.18, 1.81

0.591

Pseudo R square

0.006

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.6

0.532

21.6, 23.7

group

control

treatment

-0.375

0.755

-1.85, 1.10

0.620

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.170

0.552

-1.25, 0.911

0.758

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.486

0.800

-1.08, 2.05

0.545

Pseudo R square

0.001

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.8

0.645

23.5, 26.0

group

control

treatment

1.03

0.915

-0.758, 2.83

0.260

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.438

0.689

-1.79, 0.913

0.527

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.653

0.999

-1.31, 2.61

0.515

Pseudo R square

0.012

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.6

0.798

18.1, 21.2

group

control

treatment

1.76

1.132

-0.458, 3.98

0.122

time_point

1st

2nd

0.772

0.778

-0.753, 2.30

0.324

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.664

1.129

-1.55, 2.88

0.558

Pseudo R square

0.023

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.5

0.417

9.71, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.611

0.592

-0.549, 1.77

0.303

time_point

1st

2nd

0.469

0.401

-0.317, 1.26

0.246

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.329

0.582

-1.47, 0.812

0.573

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.9

0.637

13.7, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.394

0.903

-1.38, 2.17

0.663

time_point

1st

2nd

0.831

0.696

-0.532, 2.19

0.236

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.112

1.009

-2.09, 1.87

0.912

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.726

20.2, 23.0

group

control

treatment

0.550

1.029

-1.47, 2.57

0.593

time_point

1st

2nd

1.01

0.774

-0.505, 2.53

0.195

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.174

1.122

-2.37, 2.03

0.877

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.0

0.499

15.0, 16.9

group

control

treatment

1.05

0.708

-0.340, 2.44

0.140

time_point

1st

2nd

0.694

0.570

-0.422, 1.81

0.226

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.16

0.826

-0.463, 2.77

0.165

Pseudo R square

0.042

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.319

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.828

0.453

-0.060, 1.72

0.069

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.469

0.361

-1.18, 0.239

0.197

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.734

0.524

-0.293, 1.76

0.165

Pseudo R square

0.036

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.355

15.9, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.724

0.503

-0.263, 1.71

0.152

time_point

1st

2nd

0.305

0.381

-0.441, 1.05

0.425

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.191

0.552

-0.891, 1.27

0.730

Pseudo R square

0.018

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.368

11.5, 13.0

group

control

treatment

1.04

0.521

0.018, 2.06

0.048

time_point

1st

2nd

0.515

0.349

-0.169, 1.20

0.144

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.136

0.506

-1.13, 0.857

0.789

Pseudo R square

0.026

els

(Intercept)

28.9

0.664

27.6, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.76

0.943

-0.084, 3.61

0.063

time_point

1st

2nd

0.847

0.605

-0.339, 2.03

0.165

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.041

0.879

-1.76, 1.68

0.963

Pseudo R square

0.024

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.8

1.033

24.8, 28.9

group

control

treatment

-0.755

1.466

-3.63, 2.12

0.607

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.021

0.972

-1.93, 1.88

0.983

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.73

1.410

-5.49, 0.033

0.056

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.564

12.6, 14.8

group

control

treatment

1.17

0.799

-0.398, 2.74

0.145

time_point

1st

2nd

0.209

0.524

-0.817, 1.24

0.690

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.625

0.760

-0.865, 2.11

0.414

Pseudo R square

0.020

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.5

0.450

14.6, 16.3

group

control

treatment

1.12

0.638

-0.134, 2.37

0.082

time_point

1st

2nd

0.528

0.429

-0.312, 1.37

0.222

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.267

0.622

-1.49, 0.952

0.669

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.968

27.3, 31.1

group

control

treatment

2.29

1.373

-0.404, 4.98

0.098

time_point

1st

2nd

0.728

0.878

-0.992, 2.45

0.409

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.343

1.273

-2.15, 2.84

0.788

Pseudo R square

0.020

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.166

12.3, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.020

0.236

-0.443, 0.482

0.934

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.052

0.265

-0.571, 0.467

0.845

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.157

0.383

-0.593, 0.907

0.683

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.391

13.7, 15.2

group

control

treatment

0.697

0.555

-0.390, 1.78

0.210

time_point

1st

2nd

0.712

0.460

-0.190, 1.61

0.125

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.776

0.667

-2.08, 0.530

0.247

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.1

0.476

12.2, 14.0

group

control

treatment

0.569

0.675

-0.754, 1.89

0.400

time_point

1st

2nd

0.660

0.501

-0.323, 1.64

0.192

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.120

0.727

-1.54, 1.31

0.870

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq

(Intercept)

27.6

0.778

26.1, 29.1

group

control

treatment

1.27

1.104

-0.897, 3.43

0.253

time_point

1st

2nd

1.36

0.838

-0.286, 3.00

0.109

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.868

1.215

-3.25, 1.51

0.477

Pseudo R square

0.009

empower

(Intercept)

18.7

0.471

17.8, 19.7

group

control

treatment

0.960

0.668

-0.349, 2.27

0.152

time_point

1st

2nd

0.948

0.475

0.018, 1.88

0.049

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.12

0.689

-2.47, 0.225

0.106

Pseudo R square

0.011

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.278

13.9, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.079

0.394

-0.693, 0.852

0.841

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.006

0.352

-0.697, 0.684

0.985

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.677

0.510

-0.323, 1.68

0.188

Pseudo R square

0.011

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.9

0.346

11.2, 12.6

group

control

treatment

-0.421

0.490

-1.38, 0.540

0.392

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.169

0.440

-1.03, 0.693

0.701

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.465

0.637

-1.71, 0.784

0.467

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.393

9.30, 10.8

group

control

treatment

0.087

0.557

-1.00, 1.18

0.876

time_point

1st

2nd

0.011

0.399

-0.771, 0.792

0.979

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.18

0.578

-2.31, -0.045

0.045

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.93

0.405

9.13, 10.7

group

control

treatment

-0.211

0.575

-1.34, 0.916

0.714

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.201

0.406

-0.996, 0.594

0.621

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.503

0.588

-1.66, 0.650

0.395

Pseudo R square

0.007

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.28

0.402

7.49, 9.07

group

control

treatment

0.102

0.570

-1.01, 1.22

0.858

time_point

1st

2nd

0.060

0.442

-0.808, 0.927

0.893

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.03

0.642

-2.29, 0.227

0.112

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

28.3

1.114

26.1, 30.5

group

control

treatment

-0.021

1.580

-3.12, 3.08

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.218

1.040

-2.26, 1.82

0.834

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.48

1.509

-5.44, 0.480

0.104

Pseudo R square

0.009

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.95, 3.46], t(233) = 24.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.29], t(233) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.53], t(233) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.88], t(233) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.75])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.90 (95% CI [17.29, 18.51], t(233) = 57.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.95], t(233) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.58], t(233) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.98], t(233) = 1.26, p = 0.206; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.45 (95% CI [28.32, 30.59], t(233) = 50.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.49], t(233) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [0.07, 2.40], t(233) = 2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.01, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.22], t(233) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.70 (95% CI [11.26, 12.13], t(233) = 52.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.86], t(233) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.25], t(233) = -0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.14], t(233) = 1.30, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.47, 17.85], t(233) = 48.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.48], t(233) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.11], t(233) = 0.69, p = 0.493; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.68], t(233) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.05 (95% CI [12.41, 13.69], t(233) = 40.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.33], t(233) = 0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.11], t(233) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.49], t(233) = 0.89, p = 0.376; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.98 (95% CI [9.47, 10.49], t(233) = 38.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.41], t(233) = -0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.59], t(233) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [0.18, 2.08], t(233) = 2.34, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.08, 0.89])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [27.89, 31.77], t(233) = 30.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.61], t(233) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, 95% CI [-2.74, 0.70], t(233) = -1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-3.18, 1.81], t(233) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.61 (95% CI [21.57, 23.65], t(233) = 42.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.10], t(233) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.91], t(233) = -0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.05], t(233) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.77 (95% CI [23.50, 26.03], t(233) = 38.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.83], t(233) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.91], t(233) = -0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.61], t(233) = 0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.62 (95% CI [18.06, 21.19], t(233) = 24.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [-0.46, 3.98], t(233) = 1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.30], t(233) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.55, 2.88], t(233) = 0.59, p = 0.557; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.52 (95% CI [9.71, 11.34], t(233) = 25.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.77], t(233) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.26], t(233) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.81], t(233) = -0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.94 (95% CI [13.69, 16.19], t(233) = 23.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.17], t(233) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.19], t(233) = 1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.87], t(233) = -0.11, p = 0.912; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.59 (95% CI [20.16, 23.01], t(233) = 29.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.57], t(233) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.53], t(233) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-2.37, 2.03], t(233) = -0.15, p = 0.877; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.98, 16.94], t(233) = 31.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.44], t(233) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.81], t(233) = 1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 2.77], t(233) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.09 (95% CI [12.46, 13.71], t(233) = 40.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.72], t(233) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.24], t(233) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.76], t(233) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.62 (95% CI [15.93, 17.32], t(233) = 46.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.71], t(233) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.05], t(233) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.27], t(233) = 0.35, p = 0.729; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.23 (95% CI [11.51, 12.95], t(233) = 33.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.02, 2.06], t(233) = 1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [5.43e-03, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.20], t(233) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.86], t(233) = -0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.85 (95% CI [27.55, 30.16], t(233) = 43.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.61], t(233) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.03], t(233) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.76, 1.68], t(233) = -0.05, p = 0.963; Std. beta = -6.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.84 (95% CI [24.82, 28.87], t(233) = 25.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-3.63, 2.12], t(233) = -0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.88], t(233) = -0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = -2.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.73, 95% CI [-5.49, 0.03], t(233) = -1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.58, 3.46e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.72 (95% CI [12.61, 14.82], t(233) = 24.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.74], t(233) = 1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.24], t(233) = 0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.11], t(233) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.46 (95% CI [14.58, 16.35], t(233) = 34.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.37], t(233) = 1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.37], t(233) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.95], t(233) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.18 (95% CI [27.29, 31.08], t(233) = 30.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.29, 95% CI [-0.40, 4.98], t(233) = 1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.99, 2.45], t(233) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.84], t(233) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.23) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.59 (95% CI [12.26, 12.91], t(233) = 75.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.48], t(233) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.47], t(233) = -0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.91], t(233) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.71, 15.24], t(233) = 37.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.78], t(233) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.61], t(233) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.53], t(233) = -1.16, p = 0.244; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.18, 14.04], t(233) = 27.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.89], t(233) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.64], t(233) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.31], t(233) = -0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.59 (95% CI [26.06, 29.11], t(233) = 35.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.90, 3.43], t(233) = 1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.36, 95% CI [-0.29, 3.00], t(233) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-3.25, 1.51], t(233) = -0.71, p = 0.475; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.74 (95% CI [17.82, 19.67], t(233) = 39.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.27], t(233) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [0.02, 1.88], t(233) = 2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [4.25e-03, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-2.47, 0.22], t(233) = -1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.41 (95% CI [13.87, 14.96], t(233) = 51.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.85], t(233) = 0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.47e-03, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.68], t(233) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -2.56e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.68], t(233) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.91 (95% CI [11.24, 12.59], t(233) = 34.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.54], t(233) = -0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.69], t(233) = -0.39, p = 0.700; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.78], t(233) = -0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.07 (95% CI [9.30, 10.84], t(233) = 25.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.18], t(233) = 0.16, p = 0.875; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.79], t(233) = 0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = 2.96e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.31, -0.04], t(233) = -2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.93 (95% CI [9.13, 10.72], t(233) = 24.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.92], t(233) = -0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.59], t(233) = -0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.65], t(233) = -0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.28 (95% CI [7.49, 9.07], t(233) = 20.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.22], t(233) = 0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.93], t(233) = 0.13, p = 0.893; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.23], t(233) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.28 (95% CI [26.10, 30.46], t(233) = 25.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-3.12, 3.08], t(233) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -2.08e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-2.26, 1.82], t(233) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.48, 95% CI [-5.44, 0.48], t(233) = -1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

754.087

764.517

-374.044

748.087

recovery_stage_a

random

6

754.262

775.121

-371.131

742.262

5.825

3

0.120

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,158.227

1,168.656

-576.113

1,152.227

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,161.949

1,182.808

-574.975

1,149.949

2.278

3

0.517

ras_confidence

null

3

1,429.457

1,439.887

-711.729

1,423.457

ras_confidence

random

6

1,421.888

1,442.747

-704.944

1,409.888

13.569

3

0.004

ras_willingness

null

3

970.357

980.787

-482.179

964.357

ras_willingness

random

6

973.239

994.097

-480.619

961.239

3.119

3

0.374

ras_goal

null

3

1,202.439

1,212.868

-598.219

1,196.439

ras_goal

random

6

1,203.130

1,223.988

-595.565

1,191.130

5.309

3

0.150

ras_reliance

null

3

1,158.583

1,169.012

-576.291

1,152.583

ras_reliance

random

6

1,156.830

1,177.689

-572.415

1,144.830

7.753

3

0.051

ras_domination

null

3

1,071.577

1,082.006

-532.788

1,065.577

ras_domination

random

6

1,068.683

1,089.542

-528.342

1,056.683

8.893

3

0.031

symptom

null

3

1,655.953

1,666.382

-824.976

1,649.953

symptom

random

6

1,657.166

1,678.025

-822.583

1,645.166

4.787

3

0.188

slof_work

null

3

1,377.411

1,387.840

-685.705

1,371.411

slof_work

random

6

1,382.889

1,403.748

-685.445

1,370.889

0.522

3

0.914

slof_relationship

null

3

1,475.208

1,485.637

-734.604

1,469.208

slof_relationship

random

6

1,478.821

1,499.680

-733.411

1,466.821

2.387

3

0.496

satisfaction

null

3

1,569.287

1,579.717

-781.644

1,563.287

satisfaction

random

6

1,568.193

1,589.052

-778.097

1,556.193

7.094

3

0.069

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,252.564

1,262.993

-623.282

1,246.564

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,256.226

1,277.085

-622.113

1,244.226

2.337

3

0.505

mhc_social

null

3

1,472.508

1,482.937

-733.254

1,466.508

mhc_social

random

6

1,475.933

1,496.792

-731.967

1,463.933

2.575

3

0.462

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,532.067

1,542.496

-763.033

1,526.067

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,535.028

1,555.887

-761.514

1,523.028

3.039

3

0.386

resilisnce

null

3

1,374.063

1,384.492

-684.031

1,368.063

resilisnce

random

6

1,365.524

1,386.383

-676.762

1,353.524

14.538

3

0.002

social_provision

null

3

1,152.558

1,162.988

-573.279

1,146.558

social_provision

random

6

1,150.872

1,171.731

-569.436

1,138.872

7.686

3

0.053

els_value_living

null

3

1,192.687

1,203.116

-593.343

1,186.687

els_value_living

random

6

1,193.993

1,214.852

-590.997

1,181.993

4.694

3

0.196

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,194.945

1,205.375

-594.473

1,188.945

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,193.798

1,214.657

-590.899

1,181.798

7.147

3

0.067

els

null

3

1,472.150

1,482.579

-733.075

1,466.150

els

random

6

1,470.990

1,491.849

-729.495

1,458.990

7.159

3

0.067

social_connect

null

3

1,688.711

1,699.140

-841.355

1,682.711

social_connect

random

6

1,686.549

1,707.408

-837.274

1,674.549

8.162

3

0.043

shs_agency

null

3

1,394.454

1,404.884

-694.227

1,388.454

shs_agency

random

6

1,395.118

1,415.977

-691.559

1,383.118

5.336

3

0.149

shs_pathway

null

3

1,289.599

1,300.029

-641.800

1,283.599

shs_pathway

random

6

1,290.900

1,311.759

-639.450

1,278.900

4.699

3

0.195

shs

null

3

1,649.186

1,659.616

-821.593

1,643.186

shs

random

6

1,650.034

1,670.893

-819.017

1,638.034

5.152

3

0.161

esteem

null

3

872.336

882.766

-433.168

866.336

esteem

random

6

878.055

898.913

-433.027

866.055

0.282

3

0.963

mlq_search

null

3

1,249.941

1,260.371

-621.971

1,243.941

mlq_search

random

6

1,252.632

1,273.491

-620.316

1,240.632

3.309

3

0.346

mlq_presence

null

3

1,329.232

1,339.661

-661.616

1,323.232

mlq_presence

random

6

1,331.757

1,352.616

-659.879

1,319.757

3.474

3

0.324

mlq

null

3

1,567.651

1,578.080

-780.825

1,561.651

mlq

random

6

1,569.752

1,590.611

-778.876

1,557.752

3.899

3

0.273

empower

null

3

1,319.602

1,330.032

-656.801

1,313.602

empower

random

6

1,320.394

1,341.253

-654.197

1,308.394

5.208

3

0.157

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,096.598

1,107.028

-545.299

1,090.598

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,098.832

1,119.691

-543.416

1,086.832

3.766

3

0.288

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,201.085

1,211.515

-597.543

1,195.085

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,203.760

1,224.618

-595.880

1,191.760

3.326

3

0.344

sss_affective

null

3

1,236.646

1,247.075

-615.323

1,230.646

sss_affective

random

6

1,234.748

1,255.607

-611.374

1,222.748

7.898

3

0.048

sss_behavior

null

3

1,245.281

1,255.710

-619.640

1,239.281

sss_behavior

random

6

1,247.924

1,268.783

-617.962

1,235.924

3.357

3

0.340

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,255.170

1,265.599

-624.585

1,249.170

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,256.669

1,277.528

-622.335

1,244.669

4.501

3

0.212

sss

null

3

1,721.654

1,732.083

-857.827

1,715.654

sss

random

6

1,721.351

1,742.210

-854.675

1,709.351

6.303

3

0.098

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

82

3.21 ± 1.17

81

3.14 ± 1.17

0.698

0.074

recovery_stage_a

2nd

40

3.35 ± 1.15

-0.150

36

3.61 ± 1.15

-0.493

0.329

-0.268

recovery_stage_b

1st

82

17.90 ± 2.82

81

17.99 ± 2.82

0.847

-0.042

recovery_stage_b

2nd

40

17.65 ± 2.66

0.124

36

18.51 ± 2.65

-0.257

0.160

-0.423

ras_confidence

1st

82

29.45 ± 5.25

81

30.33 ± 5.25

0.285

-0.320

ras_confidence

2nd

40

30.69 ± 4.49

-0.449

36

32.11 ± 4.42

-0.644

0.167

-0.516

ras_willingness

1st

82

11.70 ± 2.02

81

11.94 ± 2.02

0.444

-0.217

ras_willingness

2nd

40

11.48 ± 1.76

0.196

36

12.17 ± 1.74

-0.211

0.084

-0.624

ras_goal

1st

82

17.16 ± 3.18

81

17.67 ± 3.18

0.309

-0.257

ras_goal

2nd

40

17.45 ± 2.86

-0.146

36

18.44 ± 2.84

-0.390

0.131

-0.502

ras_reliance

1st

82

13.05 ± 2.95

81

13.47 ± 2.95

0.364

-0.250

ras_reliance

2nd

40

13.45 ± 2.59

-0.238

36

14.33 ± 2.55

-0.513

0.136

-0.525

ras_domination

1st

82

9.98 ± 2.35

81

9.67 ± 2.35

0.403

0.194

ras_domination

2nd

40

9.91 ± 2.18

0.043

36

10.73 ± 2.16

-0.669

0.100

-0.517

symptom

1st

82

29.83 ± 8.95

81

29.69 ± 8.95

0.922

0.034

symptom

2nd

40

28.81 ± 7.36

0.254

36

27.98 ± 7.21

0.424

0.622

0.205

slof_work

1st

82

22.61 ± 4.82

81

22.23 ± 4.82

0.620

0.146

slof_work

2nd

40

22.44 ± 4.14

0.066

36

22.55 ± 4.08

-0.123

0.906

-0.043

slof_relationship

1st

82

24.77 ± 5.84

81

25.80 ± 5.84

0.260

-0.322

slof_relationship

2nd

40

24.33 ± 5.07

0.136

36

26.02 ± 5.00

-0.067

0.146

-0.526

satisfaction

1st

82

19.62 ± 7.23

81

21.38 ± 7.23

0.122

-0.490

satisfaction

2nd

40

20.39 ± 6.10

-0.215

36

22.82 ± 5.99

-0.399

0.082

-0.674

mhc_emotional

1st

82

10.52 ± 3.78

81

11.14 ± 3.78

0.303

-0.330

mhc_emotional

2nd

40

10.99 ± 3.18

-0.253

36

11.28 ± 3.12

-0.076

0.697

-0.152

mhc_social

1st

82

14.94 ± 5.77

81

15.33 ± 5.77

0.663

-0.122

mhc_social

2nd

40

15.77 ± 5.04

-0.256

36

16.05 ± 4.98

-0.222

0.806

-0.087

mhc_psychological

1st

82

21.59 ± 6.57

81

22.14 ± 6.57

0.593

-0.153

mhc_psychological

2nd

40

22.60 ± 5.70

-0.281

36

22.97 ± 5.62

-0.232

0.772

-0.104

resilisnce

1st

82

15.96 ± 4.52

81

17.01 ± 4.52

0.140

-0.393

resilisnce

2nd

40

16.66 ± 4.01

-0.260

36

18.86 ± 3.96

-0.693

0.017

-0.826

social_provision

1st

82

13.09 ± 2.89

81

13.91 ± 2.89

0.069

-0.489

social_provision

2nd

40

12.62 ± 2.56

0.277

36

14.18 ± 2.53

-0.156

0.008

-0.923

els_value_living

1st

82

16.62 ± 3.21

81

17.35 ± 3.21

0.152

-0.408

els_value_living

2nd

40

16.93 ± 2.79

-0.172

36

17.84 ± 2.75

-0.280

0.152

-0.516

els_life_fulfill

1st

82

12.23 ± 3.33

81

13.27 ± 3.33

0.048

-0.646

els_life_fulfill

2nd

40

12.75 ± 2.79

-0.320

36

13.65 ± 2.74

-0.236

0.155

-0.562

els

1st

82

28.85 ± 6.02

81

30.62 ± 6.02

0.063

-0.633

els

2nd

40

29.70 ± 4.98

-0.304

36

31.42 ± 4.88

-0.289

0.130

-0.618

social_connect

1st

82

26.84 ± 9.36

81

26.09 ± 9.36

0.607

0.169

social_connect

2nd

40

26.82 ± 7.81

0.005

36

23.33 ± 7.67

0.614

0.051

0.778

shs_agency

1st

82

13.72 ± 5.10

81

14.89 ± 5.10

0.145

-0.485

shs_agency

2nd

40

13.93 ± 4.25

-0.087

36

15.72 ± 4.17

-0.346

0.065

-0.743

shs_pathway

1st

82

15.46 ± 4.07

81

16.58 ± 4.07

0.082

-0.565

shs_pathway

2nd

40

15.99 ± 3.42

-0.267

36

16.84 ± 3.35

-0.132

0.275

-0.430

shs

1st

82

29.18 ± 8.76

81

31.47 ± 8.76

0.098

-0.566

shs

2nd

40

29.91 ± 7.25

-0.180

36

32.54 ± 7.10

-0.265

0.112

-0.652

esteem

1st

82

12.59 ± 1.51

81

12.60 ± 1.51

0.934

-0.015

esteem

2nd

40

12.53 ± 1.50

0.039

36

12.71 ± 1.49

-0.079

0.608

-0.134

mlq_search

1st

82

14.48 ± 3.54

81

15.17 ± 3.54

0.210

-0.322

mlq_search

2nd

40

15.19 ± 3.17

-0.329

36

15.11 ± 3.14

0.030

0.913

0.037

mlq_presence

1st

82

13.11 ± 4.31

81

13.68 ± 4.31

0.400

-0.244

mlq_presence

2nd

40

13.77 ± 3.72

-0.283

36

14.22 ± 3.67

-0.232

0.597

-0.193

mlq

1st

82

27.59 ± 7.05

81

28.85 ± 7.05

0.253

-0.324

mlq

2nd

40

28.94 ± 6.13

-0.347

36

29.34 ± 6.05

-0.125

0.776

-0.102

empower

1st

82

18.74 ± 4.26

81

19.70 ± 4.26

0.152

-0.436

empower

2nd

40

19.69 ± 3.63

-0.431

36

19.53 ± 3.57

0.080

0.842

0.075

ismi_resistance

1st

82

14.41 ± 2.52

81

14.49 ± 2.52

0.841

-0.047

ismi_resistance

2nd

40

14.41 ± 2.31

0.004

36

15.16 ± 2.30

-0.401

0.155

-0.452

ismi_discrimation

1st

82

11.91 ± 3.13

81

11.49 ± 3.13

0.392

0.201

ismi_discrimation

2nd

40

11.75 ± 2.88

0.081

36

10.86 ± 2.86

0.304

0.181

0.424

sss_affective

1st

82

10.07 ± 3.56

81

10.16 ± 3.56

0.876

-0.047

sss_affective

2nd

40

10.08 ± 3.04

-0.006

36

8.99 ± 2.99

0.632

0.116

0.590

sss_behavior

1st

82

9.93 ± 3.67

81

9.72 ± 3.67

0.714

0.112

sss_behavior

2nd

40

9.73 ± 3.12

0.107

36

9.01 ± 3.07

0.375

0.316

0.380

sss_cognitive

1st

82

8.28 ± 3.64

81

8.38 ± 3.64

0.858

-0.049

sss_cognitive

2nd

40

8.34 ± 3.19

-0.029

36

7.41 ± 3.15

0.470

0.203

0.450

sss

1st

82

28.28 ± 10.08

81

28.26 ± 10.08

0.989

0.004

sss

2nd

40

28.06 ± 8.41

0.046

36

25.56 ± 8.25

0.563

0.192

0.522

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(220.59) = -0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.29)

2st

t(229.45) = 0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.78)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(207.19) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.96)

2st

t(227.65) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.06)

ras_confidence

1st

t(184.04) = 1.07, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.50)

2st

t(234.03) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.60 to 3.44)

ras_willingness

1st

t(186.81) = 0.77, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.87)

2st

t(232.95) = 1.74, p = 0.084, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.49)

ras_goal

1st

t(194.54) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.49)

2st

t(229.89) = 1.52, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.28)

ras_reliance

1st

t(188.74) = 0.91, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.33)

2st

t(232.13) = 1.49, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.05)

ras_domination

1st

t(201.16) = -0.84, p = 0.403, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.42)

2st

t(228.20) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.80)

symptom

1st

t(177.51) = -0.10, p = 0.922, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.90 to 2.63)

2st

t(234.71) = -0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.12 to 2.47)

slof_work

1st

t(184.73) = -0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.11)

2st

t(233.78) = 0.12, p = 0.906, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.97)

slof_relationship

1st

t(186.51) = 1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.84)

2st

t(233.07) = 1.46, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.96)

satisfaction

1st

t(181.49) = 1.56, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.47 to 3.99)

2st

t(234.77) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.31 to 5.16)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(180.84) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.78)

2st

t(234.89) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.71)

mhc_social

1st

t(187.89) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.18)

2st

t(232.50) = 0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.55)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(186.40) = 0.53, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.58)

2st

t(233.12) = 0.29, p = 0.772, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.94)

resilisnce

1st

t(190.87) = 1.48, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.45)

2st

t(231.25) = 2.41, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.40 to 4.01)

social_provision

1st

t(190.29) = 1.83, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.72)

2st

t(231.49) = 2.67, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.41 to 2.71)

els_value_living

1st

t(186.76) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.72)

2st

t(232.97) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.17)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(180.27) = 1.99, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.07)

2st

t(234.96) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.15)

els

1st

t(178.50) = 1.87, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.10 to 3.62)

2st

t(234.94) = 1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.95)

social_connect

1st

t(179.84) = -0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.65 to 2.14)

2st

t(234.99) = -1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-6.99 to 0.02)

shs_agency

1st

t(179.34) = 1.46, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.75)

2st

t(235.00) = 1.86, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.70)

shs_pathway

1st

t(180.41) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.38)

2st

t(234.95) = 1.09, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.38)

shs

1st

t(178.32) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.42 to 5.00)

2st

t(234.91) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.62 to 5.88)

esteem

1st

t(227.56) = 0.08, p = 0.934, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.48)

2st

t(231.74) = 0.51, p = 0.608, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.85)

mlq_search

1st

t(193.25) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.79)

2st

t(230.34) = -0.11, p = 0.913, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.35)

mlq_presence

1st

t(185.65) = 0.84, p = 0.400, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.90)

2st

t(233.42) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.22 to 2.12)

mlq

1st

t(186.98) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.44)

2st

t(232.88) = 0.28, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.36 to 3.15)

empower

1st

t(183.21) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.28)

2st

t(234.31) = -0.20, p = 0.842, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.47)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(199.85) = 0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.86)

2st

t(228.45) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.80)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(200.23) = -0.86, p = 0.392, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.55)

2st

t(228.37) = -1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.41)

sss_affective

1st

t(183.58) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.19)

2st

t(234.19) = -1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.45 to 0.27)

sss_behavior

1st

t(182.78) = -0.37, p = 0.714, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.92)

2st

t(234.45) = -1.00, p = 0.316, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.11 to 0.69)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(188.46) = 0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.23)

2st

t(232.25) = -1.28, p = 0.203, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.36 to 0.50)

sss

1st

t(179.53) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-3.14 to 3.10)

2st

t(235.00) = -1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-6.27 to 1.27)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(116.40) = 2.30, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.07 to 0.88)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(103.93) = 1.17, p = 0.488, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.40)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(87.56) = 2.84, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.02)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(89.33) = 0.93, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.74)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(94.49) = 1.75, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.65)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(90.58) = 2.28, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.62)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(99.24) = 3.02, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.37 to 1.76)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(83.53) = -1.85, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.55 to 0.13)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(88.00) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.47)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(89.13) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.66)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(85.97) = 1.75, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.07)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(85.57) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.98)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(90.03) = 0.98, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.17)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(89.06) = 1.03, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.46)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(91.99) = 3.08, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.66 to 3.04)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(91.61) = 0.69, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.02)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(89.29) = 1.24, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.29)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(85.21) = 1.03, p = 0.610, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.11)

els

1st vs 2st

t(84.13) = 1.26, p = 0.420, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.07)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(84.95) = -2.69, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-4.79 to -0.72)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(84.64) = 1.51, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.93)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(85.30) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(84.02) = 1.16, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.91)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(125.19) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.65)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(93.60) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.90)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(88.58) = 1.02, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.59)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(89.44) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.24)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(87.04) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.82)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(98.27) = 1.81, p = 0.147, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.41)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(98.55) = -1.37, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.28)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(87.27) = -2.78, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.00 to -0.33)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(86.77) = -1.65, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.14)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(90.40) = -2.08, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.90 to -0.05)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(84.76) = -2.46, p = 0.032, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.88 to -0.52)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(112.34) = 0.74, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.53)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(101.17) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.59)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(86.40) = 2.08, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.42)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(88.00) = -0.91, p = 0.732, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.26)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(92.67) = 0.68, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.12)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(89.14) = 1.11, p = 0.540, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(96.95) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.60)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(82.73) = -1.16, p = 0.495, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.77 to 0.73)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(86.79) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.93)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(87.83) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.94)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(84.95) = 0.99, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.32)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(84.59) = 1.17, p = 0.493, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(88.63) = 1.19, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.22)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(87.76) = 1.30, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.55)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(90.42) = 1.22, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.83)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(90.07) = -1.29, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.25)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(87.97) = 0.80, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.06)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(84.27) = 1.47, p = 0.289, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.21)

els

1st vs 2st

t(83.28) = 1.40, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.05)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(84.02) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.92)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(83.75) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.25)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(84.35) = 1.23, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.38)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(83.18) = 0.83, p = 0.820, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.48)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(120.22) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.48)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(91.87) = 1.54, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.63)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(87.33) = 1.31, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(88.10) = 1.61, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.03)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(85.93) = 1.99, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.89)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(96.08) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.70)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(96.33) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.71)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(86.14) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.81)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(85.68) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.61)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(88.97) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.82 to 0.94)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(83.86) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.85)

Plot

Clinical significance